melissel Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 A constant theme of these threads seems to be "Marriage is all about ME." No, my marriage is about US. I am half of US. If half of US is miserable, then odds are that we're all miserable. How is that a healthy, happy home for anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 It has been defined since the beginning of time, and once upon a time, was how children were born into the world and nurtured. Really? You believe that all people, in every culture, in every part of the world, since "the beginning of time," have defined marriage exactly the way you do? Look it up in your history book. And you might want to pick up an Anthropology 101 textbook sometime... Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 No, my marriage is about US. I am half of US. If half of US is miserable, then odds are that we're all miserable. How is that a healthy, happy home for anyone? Why not just fix it? Much easier than divorce. (In most cases) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 AdventureMoms: IWell, precisely because I do take my vows very seriously, I didn't say "till death do us part". Our vows did not include that phrase. So your relationship is "as long as we both shall find each other entertaining"? Wow. Neither did my parents' vows, incidentally. They were married in 1979 and are still happily together, providing a loving home for their children and grandchildren to visit. Well, good for them; they paid attention to the evidence, and made a wise choice. I think I see where some of the disconnect is here. My parents married in 1946. I grew up in a different era where people at least acknowledged an ideal of marriage and commitment until death do you part. I am not at all sure this is what happened subsequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why not just fix it? Much easier than divorce. (In most cases) Cheaper too. And less devastation to the kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stages Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 But divorce, the sheer numbers of families fracturing, does affect society as a whole. And divorce affects kids. Sure their are bad enough marriages that divorce is the lesser of two evils...but again the standard of marriage shouldn't be thrown out because of that. Certainly there are social problems associated with divorce- more children growing up in a single parent household (as I was, please don't think I'm bashing single mothers!), and the problems that can accompany that- but they are not exclusive to divorce. A parent can go to prison and remain married, or one parent die. I'm not sure what standard of marriage you are referring to- it seems there are as many different kinds of marriages as there are couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 But divorce, the sheer numbers of families fracturing, does affect society as a whole. And divorce affects kids. Sure their are bad enough marriages that divorce is the lesser of two evils...but again the standard of marriage shouldn't be thrown out because of that. You have no idea how true this is, even in one person's tiny world. My son plays on a hockey team. Half the kids there have parents with fractured marriages, who fight, and do not cooperate with each other, not even in reference to hockey alone, not to mention raising the kids. These kids are a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why not just fix it? Much easier than divorce. (In most cases) How exactly? What is your easy solution for an unhappy marriage? My parents, who have been unhappily but co-dependently married for 39 years, would love to know the secret. It would have saved them quite a bit over the last few years, and I wouldn't have to worry when I don't hear from my mom for a few days that she's injured or dead. Maybe, if I'd had your solution, I would have stayed with my previous fiance, who, by the last six months of our relationship, I despised so much that I still can't even stand to hear the sound of his voice. Do you really think it's that easy to just up and fix an unhappy marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Really? You believe that all people, in every culture, in every part of the world, since "the beginning of time," have defined marriage exactly the way you do? And you might want to pick up an Anthropology 101 textbook sometime... Jackie :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think I see where some of the disconnect is here. My parents married in 1946. I grew up in a different era where people at least acknowledged an ideal of marriage and commitment until death do you part. I am not at all sure this is what happened subsequently. I had a conversation recently with an older gentlement...in his 70s...and he talked about his parents marriage....he remembered some fighting...bickering...but he said he felt secure in his family....divorce was NEVER an option. I so wish kids had that sense of security today. My poor ds and step sons are hyper sensitive to every word dh and I say to each other fearful that we are fighting and about to get divorced. (we never fight, but even loud joking seems to trigger them) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Really? You believe that all people, in every culture, in every part of the world, since "the beginning of time," have defined marriage exactly the way you do? Jackie We are talking about marriage in OUR culture here since the original issues/threads that spawned these discussions are our cultural issues. I thought that was blatantly obvious, but regret that I failed to place that parameter on my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 It has been defined since the beginning of time, and once upon a time, was how children were born into the world and nurtured. Look it up in your history book. History shows many, many variations on marriage. Polygyny is very historically common. Arranged marriages also. Men and women having sex outside marriage is also very historically common. The "traditional" marriage in western society seems to involve a man taking a young woman (or women) as his property/breeding stock with no concern as to her (their) consent. I prefer a more modern definition that involves consent and happiness. Yes, and they should stop being so bloody selfish as to make everyone else miserable. If they have problems, they should fix them. Selfishness is a major cause of divorce. Not the only cause, as there are vile molesters/criminals, etc hiding out behind an oblivious trusting spouse, but is definitely a major cause. Every day isn't a bed of roses. Deal with it and each other because you went into this together. One can work on a marriage even if one is not required to stay until they die. Just sayin'. A lot of this can be controlled on the early end by exercising some considerable care in choosing a spouse and making sure that wise people you know vet the relationship. That doesn't seem to happen as much as it should. Pay attention to the evidence being presented to you by the person you are dating. Don't have sex early on, so that you CAN pay attention and not be blinded by the physical side, which is great for everyone -early on. Here, I agree completely. Far too many people enter into marriage because of blind passion. Well, he - or she - ought to get some help. Uncover the reasons. Work on the reasons instead of get involved with someone else, the answer for much of America. If everyone's not happy, no one is happy. Yeah, call me Ann Landers, or one of her contemporaries. I agree. Now what if the help doesn't work? What if he or she refuses to get help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I had a conversation recently with an older gentlement...in his 70s...and he talked about his parents marriage....he remembered some fighting...bickering...but he said he felt secure in his family....divorce was NEVER an option. I so wish kids had that sense of security today. My poor ds and step sons are hyper sensitive to every word dh and I say to each other fearful that we are fighting and about to get divorced. (we never fight, but even loud joking seems to trigger them) I know what you mean. My kids never even heard the word "divorce" growing up and only had a vague idea that this happened until the last couple of years. They are very secure in this, but a couple of times along the way when they heard of other kids' parents divorcing, they wanted some reassurance that any arguments were just that - normal arguments, not anything serious. They have been affected by what happened to other families. This should not be. It sure wasn't true in my small primarily Catholic town growing up. I can't remember a single couple getting divorced where we heard about it until late high school. This is not the case for today's kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheres Toto Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 History shows many, many variations on marriage. Polygyny is very historically common. Arranged marriages also. Men and women having sex outside marriage is also very historically common. The "traditional" marriage in western society seems to involve a man taking a young woman (or women) as his property/breeding stock with no concern as to her (their) consent. I prefer a more modern definition that involves consent and happiness. :iagree: This seems to be what my history books point to - an arrangement where all the power is with the man and the women and children are property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 How exactly? What is your easy solution for an unhappy marriage? My parents, who have been unhappily but co-dependently married for 39 years, would love to know the secret. It would have saved them quite a bit over the last few years, and I wouldn't have to worry when I don't hear from my mom for a few days that she's injured or dead. Maybe, if I'd had your solution, I would have stayed with my previous fiance, who, by the last six months of our relationship, I despised so much that I still can't even stand to hear the sound of his voice. Do you really think it's that easy to just up and fix an unhappy marriage? I divorced my husband, so no I don't think it is always possible and certainly never easy. I do believe it can be done. Certainly much more often than is done. My husband didn't have to get divorced. I wasn't a bad wife and he wasn't forced to go cheat on me. There is a lot of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Apart from abuse, till death do us part. And I've seen marriages suffer through infidelity and still not only survive, but thrive, so that's a case by case basis, too, though I have no judgment toward those who do divorce, I can't even say my marriage would survive that. My MIL has been an incredible role model for me in this, as she stayed with her Alz husband, to the end, taking care of him so well that it took him weeks to die when he finally couldn't eat anymore. She loved him more as he forgot who she was, as he told her she was fired on a daily basis, as she sacrificed her own life because she made a vow. AND, this was after he left her and they were legally separated for 12 years, and only had recently gotten back together before he was diagnosed. It is amazing to listen to her, and hear her say she loved him more though his sickness, that they got closer, that she misses him so much. When she had every reason in the world to leave him, not only because he had previously left her, but then became someone she didn't marry. You know, marriage sucks sometimes. Life sucks, sometimes. I made a vow to stay married to this person and build a life with them, period. Otherwise I wouldn't have gotten married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 We are talking about marriage in OUR culture here since the original issues/threads that spawned these discussions are our cultural issues. I thought that was blatantly obvious, but regret that I failed to place that parameter on my statement. Which culture is "our" culture again? The culture that has existed unchanged since the beginning of time and is shared by everyone on these boards? 'cause my history books don't list that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 AdventureMoms: I prefer a more modern definition that involves consent and happiness. I'm on board with the consent, of course. But the happiness thing is so ephemeral and so situation-specific that I think you just make your own happiness. I agree. Now what if the help doesn't work? What if he or she refuses to get help? Would need some facts here. But if a husband is abusive, beats the wife or kids, is enmeshed in sexual sin, anything like that, separation would certainly be in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Which culture is "our" culture again? The culture that has existed unchanged since the beginning of time and is shared by everyone on these boards? 'cause my history books don't list that one. Oh come on. Most of us on this board are in a culture that has a standard of marriage that it is suppose to last a lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) So your relationship is "as long as we both shall find each other entertaining"? Wow. What I find "wow" is how snide that was. All you hear is that "as long as we both shall find each other entertaining"? Honestly? Clearly, you are either choosing not to hear, or intend to simply ignore what you are hearing. Your words are degrading. And, my goodness, that you think marriage has been the one-man-one-woman concept of your religion? The concept of marriage has changed even the books Christians consider to be scriptures. It once included a soldier and a female prisoner of war (who could be used sexually and then "returned"), and a rape victim and her rapist. I've met Christian people who insist one is married to their first sexual partner, even if one was a victim of child rape (and therefore never supported their daughter actually marrying a man once she was an independent woman). Her parents used the Bible. There you go. That was all of the thought they needed. Their definition of marriage was the only one, too. Just as they did, you have one definition that you insist is the only one. What you are willing to accept as marriage is only a fractional subset of what is considered marriage by much of the world. You are going out of your way to degrade folks with a different perspective. Differing points of view are one thing. Disparaging another person and their marriage is quite another kettle of fish. Edited January 30, 2012 by Ipsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Because you took a freaking VOW to love, honor and cherish until death do you part! This isn't like, "Oh well, we've grown apart, dear. Besides, I met a woman 20 years your junior and she's hotter than you. Oh, and that shaking you are starting to do as a result of your (fill in the blank disease) is frustrating to me and I don't wish to have a burden on me in older age. So, I think our contract should be reevaluated." I'm laughing that I have to even mention this minor fact of this being what marriage IS. Wow. Big time wow. This is incredibly, terribly, and awfully insulting and trivializing to those of us who are dealing presently with real life, pervasive, medical issues with our spouses. Juxtaposing an affair with a younger woman with a medical issue, and assuming that these decisions are made lightly is a twisted arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 justamouse: Apart from abuse, till death do us part. And I've seen marriages suffer through infidelity and still not only survive, but thrive, so that's a case by case basis, too, though I have no judgment toward those who do divorce, I can't even say my marriage would survive that. Yeah, definitely case by case. My MIL has been an incredible role model for me in this, as she stayed with her Alz husband, to the end, taking care of him so well that it took him weeks to die when he finally couldn't eat anymore. She loved him more as he forgot who she was, as he told her she was fired on a daily basis, as she sacrificed her own life because she made a vow. This made me smile. "You're FIRED!" I can just see that. AND, this was after he left her and they were legally separated for 12 years, and only had recently gotten back together before he was diagnosed. It is amazing to listen to her, and hear her say she loved him more though his sickness, that they got closer, that she misses him so much. When she had every reason in the world to leave him, not only because he had previously left her, but then became someone she didn't marry. God bless your MIL. You know, marriage sucks sometimes. Life sucks, sometimes. I made a vow to stay married to this person and build a life with them, period. Otherwise I wouldn't have gotten married. Right. And I'll add - shoot me - Kids suck sometimes and make you want to scream or move to an island where they can never find you. Or maybe that's only me. But I made a commitment to them and I'm doing my job, no matter how hard it is, and I'm going to love them anyway. Same with my husband. He's easy though! I picked someone easy to get along with, intentionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Oh come on. Most of us on this board are in a culture that has a standard of marriage that it is suppose to last a lifetime. Try again :) What culture is this again? I believe the marriage statistics in the US do not bear this out. Many of the people on this board have lives that do not bear this out. It might be the "ideal" to some people, but it's not the reality. So, are we talking about some magical culture that we imagine in our religions, or reality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Wow. Big time wow. This is incredibly, terribly, and awfully insulting and trivializing to those of us who are dealing presently with real life, pervasive, medical issues with our spouses. Juxtaposing an affair with a younger woman with a medical issue, and assuming that these decisions are made lightly is a twisted arrogance. If you have a spouse whom you are faithfully caring for, it doesn't even apply to you. And I'm sorry for whatever you are going through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If my spouse wants out so badly that he'll use that as any excuse to get out of our marriage, good riddance. Why would I want to stay in a relationship with someone who felt so strongly about getting away from me? :iagree: I don't understand why someone would WANT to remain married to a spouse who didn't love or care about them. A constant theme of these threads seems to be "Marriage is all about ME." But my marriage IS all about me and my DH; that's why it's up to us to decide what we want from it. Why would anyone else think that my marriage should be all about THEM and what THEY think we should do/want/vow? :confused: Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I do believe in marriage till death. I just also believe that for various reasons, divorce should be an option. I don't plan to ever get divorced but there are instances where I believe it is the right course of action for the spouses and kids involved. This exactly. I've been around, been involved with and seen too much to accept happily ever after for everyone. In an ideal world that would be the way it happens. Sadly we live in a fallen world were violence and adultery and terrible things happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I divorced my husband, so no I don't think it is always possible and certainly never easy. I do believe it can be done. Certainly much more often than is done. My husband didn't have to get divorced. I wasn't a bad wife and he wasn't forced to go cheat on me. There is a lot of that. I know your story, and I don't disagree with you. But I don't understand why anyone would feel compelled, by ANY vow, to work to stay with someone who wanted THAT badly to just be gone from the marriage. And I don't mean you in particular. I mean anyone. That doesn't mean I think you should jump ship at the first sign of dissatisfaction. Of course I think if both parties are willing, plenty of work should be done, for as long as both parties want to work at it. But if my spouse was abjectly miserable, was making me abjectly miserable, and wanted out that badly, I would want freedom from that for both of us. If I were the miserable one and I truly did not think the marriage would ever make me happy again, I would want freedom for both of us. I've seen marriages where the people stayed together out of some kind of duty or for the kids. They are awful. The levels of anger, depression, and resentment were off the charts, and so much of that seeped into the kids' daily lives. I don't see how that's any better for them than an amicable divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Oh come on. Most of us on this board are in a culture that has a standard of marriage that it is suppose to last a lifetime. I was told to go look in my history book to find THE standard definition of traditional marriage that has existed since the beginning of time. I can't even find one definition of marriage that exists through the whole Bible. And I really think it is presumptuous to assume that the Bible is the basis of the definition of marriage for all of us, even those who are not members of Abrahamic religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation. This is the PERFECT way to say it for us as well. Thank you, Scrappy! I will also add that we didn't get married intending to live by some sort of code from a god from 2,000 years ago that neither DH nor I believe in. We are guided by our own internal morals, not an external ancient code of conduct invented by some demented dudes wandering around in a desert thinking they are the sole children of god. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Ipsey: What I find "wow" is how snide that was. All you hear is that "as long as we both shall find each other entertaining"? Honestly? Clearly, you are either choosing not to hear, or intend to simply ignore what you are hearing. Your words are degrading. That was not my intention and I agree that "entertaining" wasn't the best word choice. But I'm not really clear on what one inserts as a principle if not "until death do us part". So it is what: "I promise to love, honor and cherish you until (Fill in the blank for me, please). What is the point of termination where the spouse has the out? What you are willing to accept as marriage is only a fractional subset of what is considered marriage by much of the world. You are going out of your way to degrade folks with a different perspective. I'm actually not doing this at all. Numerous people have opined that their marriages are not until death do they part, but until some other lower bar is reached. I'm simply examining the parameters of that within OUR culture, as I made clear elsewhere and for which I apologize initially, as I assumed this was understood, since the incidents that caused these conversations were about American traditional marriages, not aboriginal arranged marriages, for example. Differing points of view are one thing. Disparaging another person and their marriage is quite another kettle of fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So it is what: "I promise to love, honor and cherish you until (Fill in the blank for me, please). What is the point of termination where the spouse has the out? The point of termination is something that is determined by the couple in question, preferably before marriage. It is none of my business how other people choose to arrange their personal affairs. For me, while the kids are small, the point of termination comes if the relationship had deteriorated to the point where we feel the kids would be better off if we separated. When the kids are grown point of termination is when, even after working as hard as we can on our relationship (therapy, etc) someone is still deeply unhappy and wants out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm actually not doing this at all. Actually, you are. You're being extremely snide and disparaging, in a way that I have to assume the OP, who asked the question, did not intend. Are you being deliberately obtuse about the vows question? Because people write their own vows all the time. They can say whatever they want to say. "Til death do us part" or some variation on that is not required in wedding vows, in spite of what yours may have said. You are the one living in your marriage and with your intentions toward it. Why does it matter to you how others conduct their marriages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Apart from abuse, till death do us part. And I've seen marriages suffer through infidelity and still not only survive, but thrive, so that's a case by case basis, too, though I have no judgment toward those who do divorce, I can't even say my marriage would survive that. My MIL has been an incredible role model for me in this, as she stayed with her Alz husband, to the end, taking care of him so well that it took him weeks to die when he finally couldn't eat anymore. She loved him more as he forgot who she was, as he told her she was fired on a daily basis, as she sacrificed her own life because she made a vow. AND, this was after he left her and they were legally separated for 12 years, and only had recently gotten back together before he was diagnosed. It is amazing to listen to her, and hear her say she loved him more though his sickness, that they got closer, that she misses him so much. When she had every reason in the world to leave him, not only because he had previously left her, but then became someone she didn't marry. You know, marriage sucks sometimes. Life sucks, sometimes. I made a vow to stay married to this person and build a life with them, period. Otherwise I wouldn't have gotten married. I love this story. My step dad cared for his first wife (40 something years of marriage) for 5 years while she suffered with ovarian cancer. Then just 2 years after he married my mom she came down with breast cancer. I sure am glad he didn't say, 'well, I'm outta here...already gave my limit to my first wife's cancer.' No he was with her every minute, every doctor visit, every treatment never leaving her side. And it was HARD on him. But he did it because that is what mates do for each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jar7709 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation. :iagree:with this too, as well as posters above that stated that not everyone's definition of marriage is identical, nor has it meant the same thing to all cultures throughout history. Bringing it back to OP's question: DH and I were married, in part, so he could get a green card--he needed the green card so we could keep dating. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Try again :) What culture is this again? I believe the marriage statistics in the US do not bear this out. Many of the people on this board have lives that do not bear this out. It might be the "ideal" to some people, but it's not the reality. So, are we talking about some magical culture that we imagine in our religions, or reality? Right it is become the new reality for the standard that was in place just 30 years ago to not exist for many. I see it as a huge reason for the shape society is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So it is what: "I promise to love, honor and cherish you until (Fill in the blank for me, please). What is the point of termination where the spouse has the out? "... until we decide that the marriage is irretrievably broken and that we can no longer continue as man and wife." Preferably a mutual decision, but if one spouse decides the marriage is irretrievably broken and refuses to work on it, then unfortunately it is irretrievably broken. The way you phrase it — "where the spouse has an out" — makes it sound as if marriage is some sort of prison or trap, and spouses will bolt the first chance they get if they're given some loophole or "out." You make it sound as if anyone who doesn't promise "till death do us part" will just bail at the first opportunity, and I don't think most marriages are like that at all, regardless of what the vows say. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 The legal perks are really important in our society. Without them, you can be disregarded on many levels (healthcare, financial, etc) when something happens to the other person. Other than that, I don't see any validity to the institution of marriage at all. The personal exchange between two people --- THAT is significant, but I don't believe you need some legal papers or some god to make a vow to another person. If you need that to keep your vow, I think that's beyond sad. Just keep the d**n vows.. It isn't that d**n hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukale Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I have been married for a little over 14 years. We married because we were in love and wanted to spend the rest of our lives together. We took our vows very seriously. I don't think a marriage is something you just walk away from if you are having a rough month. There are a very few things that would end our marriage dead it its tracks. I would leave him in a heartbeat if he ever hurt our girls, either sexually or physically. I could not live with him if I feared for my own safety either. That would be a deal breaker for me. So while I did say "until death" there is always an exception to the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 "... until we decide that the marriage is irretrievably broken and that we can no longer continue as man and wife." Preferably a mutual decision, but if one spouse decides the marriage is irretrievably broken and refuses to work on it, then unfortunately it is irretrievably broken. The way you phrase it — "where the spouse has an out" — makes it sound as if marriage is some sort of prison or trap, and spouses will bolt the first chance they get if they're given some loophole or "out." You make it sound as if anyone who doesn't promise "till death do us part" will just bail at the first opportunity, and I don't think most marriages are like that at all, regardless of what the vows say. Jackie THank you, this is really well said. We do not see our marriage as a trap where we need to keep each other from "having an out". We view it as a loving relationship, a friendship, and a family that we work on, and which grows with time. If things got bad, we would try to fix it, not because we're trapped in the relationship by our vows, but because we want to be together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unicorn. Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 You have no idea how true this is, even in one person's tiny world. My son plays on a hockey team. Half the kids there have parents with fractured marriages, who fight, and do not cooperate with each other, not even in reference to hockey alone, not to mention raising the kids. These kids are a mess. And these parents staying together wouldn't change any of that. They would still be fighting, not cooperating with each other, but the kids would be in constant exposure. How is that healthy, and how would that be any better for the kids? I grew up w/ parents who should have divorced long before I graduated from college. I would have had a much healthier childhood, not being exposed to the daily arguments and hatred for each other. Yes, I'm sure there would have still been arguing and nasty comments, but they both would have been lessed stressed on a day to day basis, which would have made it a much healthier environment to grow up in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm simply examining the parameters of that within OUR culture, as I made clear elsewhere and for which I apologize initially, as I assumed this was understood, since the incidents that caused these conversations were about American traditional marriages... We are talking about marriage in OUR culture here since the original issues/threads that spawned these discussions are our cultural issues. I thought that was blatantly obvious, but regret that I failed to place that parameter on my statement. I'm not sure how it's "blatantly obvious" that the phrase "since the beginning of time" only refers to a few hundred years of "traditional American" culture. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Why not just fix it? Much easier than divorce. (In most cases) Ah, but there's the twist... in order to fix one, both have to want to find the fix. Some things don't want to be fixed, and some things can't be fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Right it is become the new reality for the standard that was in place just 30 years ago to not exist for many. I see it as a huge reason for the shape society is in. Every generation thinks that society is doomed and that their generation was the last one with any decency. Cultural mores have been evolving and will continue to evolve as long as humans exist on the earth. Change is inevitable. Right now, in so many ways, we are better off culturally than we were just 50 years ago. Just because you don't agree with the changes doesn't make them abhorrent. There are lots of people that are just fine with the changes in our culture. That's why you get to decide how your marriage and family work and why we get to decide how ours work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Ah, but there's the twist... in order to fix one, both have to want to find the fix. Some things don't want to be fixed, and some things can't be fixed. I agree...and I'm not talking about a marriage...like to look at one going bad and say 'fix it!' I'm talking the bigger picture...there should be a PUSH to convince EVERYONE getting married to think about how to fix things when tough times come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Every generation thinks that society is doomed and that their generation was the last one with any decency. Cultural mores have been evolving and will continue to evolve as long as humans exist on the earth. Change is inevitable. Right now, in so many ways, we are better off culturally than we were just 50 years ago. Just because you don't agree with the changes doesn't make them abhorrent. There are lots of people that are just fine with the changes in our culture. That's why you get to decide how your marriage and family work and why we get to decide how ours work. I see society steadily going down hill. And maybe 'every generation' thinks that because it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 And these parents staying together wouldn't change any of that. They would still be fighting, not cooperating with each other, but the kids would be in constant exposure. How is that healthy, and how would that be any better for the kids? I grew up w/ parents who should have divorced long before I graduated from college. I would have had a much healthier childhood, not being exposed to the daily arguments and hatred for each other. Yes, I'm sure there would have still been arguing and nasty comments, but they both would have been lessed stressed on a day to day basis, which would have made it a much healthier environment to grow up in. :iagree: I know adults whose parents divorced, and they're perfectly happy, normal, functional adults. I know adults whose parents are still together, and they're messed up and dysfunctional and have a hard time relating to other people. I know adults whose parents divorced, and while it wasn't an easy life, living with two parents who were unhappy all the time wouldn't have been a walk in the park either. And I know adults whose parents are still together, and they're not all that thrilled with their childhoods anyway. Life is what we make of it, and parents who aren't handling their marriage well are just as damaging to their kids as parents who aren't handling their divorce well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I agree...and I'm not talking about a marriage...like to look at one going bad and say 'fix it!' I'm talking the bigger picture...there should be a PUSH to convince EVERYONE getting married to think about how to fix things when tough times come. I will definitely agree with that. I see people getting married all the time and their blinders are so firmly in place that it would be laughable if it weren't so sad. I wish people were brought up that it was a GOOD thing to discuss the worst possible scenarios with a potential/future spouse instead of waiting for the worst to happen only to find out that the person you married isn't capable of meeting that challenge. Talk about what you would do if you are infertile (one, the other or both). Talk about what you would do if one partner were incapacitated -- and included variations thereof. Talk about your families and all the a--holes in it who may be problems in your marriage (because, let's face it, in-law baggage has sunk many a marriage) And, etc... Romance is all fine and dandy, but buckle up for bear 'cause life ain't a romance, baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Some of the posts in this thread seem to be coming from the perspective that marriage is about taking two people and making them a couple. So if the couple have done the things they've set out to do together -- e.g., raising children to adulthood -- and they're no longer happy, then the marriage would be over. No big deal; it has served its purpose. Almost like like some sort of husk that can be discarded. (I'm not saying everyone who's open to divorce feels this way, but it seems that some do.) The thing is, in every traditional culture throughout history that I can think of, marriage is about taking two people and making them family. And family doesn't just last until the children are grown. It is forever. For better or for worse. In difficult circumstances, families can end up estranged from one another -- but, in our society at least, for one family member to disown another would be seen as a huge deal that would affect the whole extended family and, to some extent, the broader community. It's not something that would be done in a casual, "no harm no foul" sort of way. And not for something unintentional like a disability. Having the misfortune of being disabled doesn't make you "not family" any more. Or if it does, stop the planet; I want to get off. I'm trying to imagine how people would react if an adult son put his mother with Alzheimer's into a top-notch care facility, then disowned her and went out to get another one. Because, you know, he really felt sad without a mother figure in his life, and his children needed a grandmother to rock in a rocking chair and bake them cookies. And that other woman just wasn't the same person any more. :001_huh: To some of us, it seems like the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I love this story. My step dad cared for his first wife (40 something years of marriage) for 5 years while she suffered with ovarian cancer. Then just 2 years after he married my mom she came down with breast cancer. I sure am glad he didn't say, 'well, I'm outta here...already gave my limit to my first wife's cancer.' No he was with her every minute, every doctor visit, every treatment never leaving her side. And it was HARD on him. But he did it because that is what mates do for each other. Those posters (and humans in general) who have an alternate view do not assume the opposite of your view. The reality that a pervasive change changes the nature of the covanent/contract/vow does not mean that we leave easily, when things get hard, or when a spouse gets sick. Dude, if I left when it was hard my first marriage would have ended within 5 years and this one also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Rat Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation. :iagree: Couldn't have said it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts